Ayn Rand

This is going to be a long post. But then a post in defence of Atlas Shrugged can hardly be expected to be short.

Someone sent me a link to this article on Salon.com about Ayn Rand and her Magnum Opus. It is one of those articles that cause you to think again about a topic you have always felt strongly about. Two out of those ten points even make sense, I have to concede. However, if one reads the article carefully, one notices that a number of things appear to be quoted out of context. And in at least one case, the article seems to reach a conclusion from a quotation in the book that is completely baffling.

I can understand why a number of people do not think highly of Ayn Rand. She was possibly a misogynist and favoured smoking and did not think much of the rights of Native Americans. However, her thoughts on Capitalism and her critique of Socialism have been no less than erudite.

Let me attempt to argue my case against the shortcomings of the article in Salon.com
As I read that article I noticed that compared to what I remember of the book, some of the arguments in the article seem to be taking rather generous liberties with quoting Atlas Shrugged out of context. Let me elaborate.

Point number 2
The Salon article only says, "Dagny pulled rank and ordered them (the train engineer and conductor) to drive through the red light." While this is technically true, the article has conveniently left out the context under which she chooses this course of action. The book had set up enough context to say that the train engineers guessed that the red signal was most likely faulty but nobody was willing to take the responsibility for any next steps. They were perfectly willing to just sit there and wait forever. Dagny heard them out and then took the call to move forward at a safe speed. Somebody needed to take action and Dagny did.

In the same point, the Salon article refers to Dagny's defence of the 100 mph speed of the first train on the John Galt Line, where Dagny says that if it were not for public opinion, the speed might as well have been a slower 65 mph, implying that they were going to travel at 100 mph to prove the mettle of Rearden metal as it were.

The article conveniently leaves out the context that the moochers worked very hard to ensure that Rearden Metal was discredited and not allowed for use anywhere and when Dagny, after trying hard to buy regular steel and failing, took the call to build the John Galt line with it, they tried to label the John Galt Line as unsafe. The book further sets up the context that Dagny and Rearden had enough confidence in the Rearden Metal rail, and the courage, to ride the train themselves. If others were unsure of the safety, nobody was putting a gun to their head and making them ride the train.

I do have to admit, that there is not enough in the book that talks about safety testing of Rearden Metal under different stress test conditions. But then the book was written in a different day and age. Countries back then thought it was perfectly acceptable to put lead in gasoline and CFCs in aerosol cans and watches and clock faces were regularly painted with radium for the glow-in-the-dark effect. Drugs were administered for maladies before side effects were fully understood. Pre-launch testing is a rather recent invention. I am tempted to point out, however, that Atlas Shrugged is a novel, not a text-book on product launch procedure.

Point number 3
The Salon article implies that the Equalization of Opportunities bill was passed by a majority of congress where the elected representatives were honouring their pre-election promises. That is not how the book sets up the context. The book clearly states that vested interests, like James Taggart,  exert undue influence over the powers that be to have the bill passed for their benefit - to actually prevent superior competition on their turf. Isn't is this bill that causes the Phoenix Durango line to close down just in time for the launch of the John Galt line? The salon article twists this around completely and presents the bill as benevolent and anti-monopoly when the book sets up the context to show the bill as being anti-competition.

Point number 4
The article says that Ayn Rand insinuates that the government has never invented anything or done any good for anyone. Umm - not quite. Ayn Rand says the State Science Institute as portrayed in Atlas Shrugged had not invented anything.

Point number 5
The article suggests that Francisco slaps Dagny when she makes a joke he doesn't like. If I remember correctly, he slaps her when she suggests that she should act incompetent so that others might like her; because it is her competence that they seem to resent. The very idea is so abhorrent to Rand that her pen possibly convulsed with violence.

I do have to admit that in most of Ayn Rand's books there is something very warped about how men treat women - whether it is the scene in Fountainhead where Howard Roark rapes Dominique Francon or the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Hank Rearden takes Dagny almost by force and then calls her a whore. There is definitely something weird going on in Ayn Rand's head here - I won't even try to contest this point.

Point number 6

The article says that Ayn Rand suggests that all natural resources are limitless.

I don't remember it that way at all. I believe the book goes to some length to show that Ellis Wyatt had to work hard to figure out a way to extract oil from hard to get to places like - ahem - Shale.

 

Similarly, John Galt worked hard to figure out a way to get energy out of thin air WITHOUT having to burn fossil fuels like - ahem again - Solar Photo Voltaic cells. Check out the youtube video of the launch of the Tesla Power-wall and hear what Elon Musk has to say about this infinite source of power that shows up every morning and just works.

The article refers sarcastically to Ayn Rand's philosophy that human ingenuity can overcome any problem if only the government would get out of the way.

 

Given the rapid development in efficiency of Solar PV cells and that we manage to make our devices and appliances more efficient / less energy hungry, I do not see any reason to argue against Ayn Rand's claim that human ingenuity can overcome any problem. We have already managed to find solutions to various diseases, growing enough food for 7 billion people and putting a man on the moon and bringing him back safely. We have put telescopes in orbit and have sent probes to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto. Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have left the solar system and are still sending signals back; one powered by a solar array and another powered by a small device providing nuclear energy.

 

Incidentally, most of this scientific advance has been achieved in the free world, where the government does indeed get out of the way.

 

Point number 7.

Again the article does not provide the context completely.

Dagny and Rearden have been driving through what could be termed as an industrial wilderness - an area that was once productive but has now decayed. The 20th century Motor Company once provided gainful employment to people like John Galt who were producing the best work they could. It was only when Ivy Starnes instituted the principle of  'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs' that the once great company floundered and eventually died.

Looking now at the rust-belt around Detroit one cannot but notice the decline from the glory days of General Motors to its bankruptcy of 2009. Given that a large part of the problem was precipitated by the United Auto Worker (UAW) negotiated Jobs Bank program, which mandated that any unionized employee could never be fired and would continue to draw upto 90% of his salary even if there was no work for him, I would say that Ayn Rand has been quite prescient.

Point number 9 is especially twisted.
I did a double take when I read the Salon author's interpretation of what Francisco said in the quote provided, “Dagny, there’s nothing of any importance in life — except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that. It’s the only measure of human value. All the codes of ethics they’ll try to ram down your throat are just so much paper money put out by swindlers to fleece people of their virtues. The code of competence is the only system of morality that’s on a gold standard.”

What kind of a person reads 'rich people are more valuable than poor people' from that quote?

Point number 1 and 10.

Good people look good and bad people are unattractive. 

Fair point, but just a sign of the times. Ayn Rand is not the only author or film-maker of that era to be guilty of this.I suspect story telling and movie making had not evolved enough to appreciate that audiences were intelligent enough to figure out the nuances of good and bad without the protagonists and antagonists being made to wear explicit masks to showcase their character.

Similarly, the point about smoking being revered as laudatory is clearly unacceptable today, but then again, those were different times. I remember movies from my own teen age when the hero smoked cigarettes to signify 'cool'; consider Deewar and Trishul or any number of English movies.

I would appreciate a fair critique of any book, even Atlas Shrugged perhaps, but to quote out of context appears to be a rather sly way of making a point.